Enhanced Oil Recovery System For Use With A Geopressured-Geothermal Conversion System: Concept Introduction at the Society of Petroleum Engineers/ American Inst. of Chemical Engineers Joint Workshop: Practical Strategies for Managing CO2 Emissions —Today Not Tomorrow Sonoma, California, 25-26 February 2008 George S. Nitschke, D.Eng., P.E. Good Earth Mechanics, LLC [email protected]
35
Embed
Enhanced Oil Recovery System For Use With A Geopressured ... TEOR at Sonoma... · Enhanced Oil Recovery System For Use With A Geopressured-Geothermal Conversion System: Concept Introduction
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Enhanced Oil Recovery System For Use With A Geopressured-Geothermal Conversion System:
Concept Introduction at the Society of Petroleum Engineers/ American Inst. of Chemical Engineers Joint Workshop:
Practical Strategies for Managing CO2 Emissions —Today Not Tomorrow
Sonoma, California, 25-26 February 2008
George S. Nitschke, D.Eng., P.E.Good Earth Mechanics, LLC
(1) Primary objective thermal energy to drive flash distillation processes; electricity generated to run pumps solely; SP build costs (1992 $) considered applicable
(2) Primary objective electricity generation; actual 1980 $, Beith Ha’Arava, Israel (3) Construction costs considered 3x higher as they include an 18 acre maintenance pond,
plus evaporation and cooling ponds (correlative estimate given in parenthesis, i.e. 3x 20 = 60 acre effective pond build area); reference uses SOLPOND (see App.B; MITSOL used instead of SOLPOND as source code was unavailable) and apparently assumes 3x better performance than what would be expected (from MITSOL), ergo the parenthetical $Pwre value is also decremented 3x for comparison purposes here.
[54] Lu, Huanmin, Walton, John C., and Hein, Herbert; Thermal Desalination Using MEMS and Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond Technology, UTEP, DOI Desalination R&D Program Report No.80, August 2002.
[55] Doron, B., Ormat Turbines Ltd Israel; Solar Pond Activity – Status and Prospects, 2nd
International Conference on Solar Ponds, Rome, 25-31 March 1990.
[104] May, E.K., Leboeuf, C.M., Waddington, D.; Conceptual Design of a 20-Acre Salt Gradient Solar Pond System for Electric Power Production at Truscott, Texas; SERI/TR-253-1868, July, 1983.
$40,000/acre construction
$20,000/acre ORC pwr equip
$60,000/acre SP costs(~$50k/acre salt cost offset)
+
• $60k/ac x 100 ac = $6M• conveyance: $1M—$4M
(Kern County –
Mojave Desert)• Total 2MW SP costs $7M—$10M• 2MW SP offset TEOR carbon• $5M TEOR carbon offset credit• Balance: $2M—$5M SP costs• For 4M bbl oil production per
GPGT well, a $0.50—$1.25/bbl-oil renewable energy tax credit would install the SP “cost free”
With proper CO2 tax management and renewable tax credits, the solar ponds can be established “cost free”
14
Outline
GEM TEOR
What is it?
What are the cost savings?
What is the status of its implementation?
15
GEM TEOR is Pilot Project Ready
Establish a Pilot Project to profitably demonstrate GEM TEOR-
Patented technology to protect stakeholder interests-
Solar Pond Permitting, gradient maintenance, algae plumes
Solar pond practitioner and maintenance expertise, fail-safe
design, renewable energy motivationLow
Pilot project is generally low-to-medium-risk, using off-the-shelf systems.
19
Recent GPGT-Energy Legislation
Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 Section 7. Geothermal Energy Production from Oil and Gas Fields and Recovery and Production of Geopressured Gas Resources Establishes a demonstration program to prove the feasibility of co-producing geothermal power from hot water “co-produced” from oil and gas fields. This section also directs the Secretary of Energy to hold a design competition to produce preliminary designs for state-of-the-art approaches to recovering the energy contained in geopressured resources
– which contain heat, pressure, and dissolved methane – in and near the Gulf of Mexico.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Subtitle B, Geothermal EnergyDOE is directed to establish a program of R&D, demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal energy production from oil and gas fields and from geopressured resources. Section 616 directs DOE to implement a grant program for at least three demonstration projects that use geothermal techniques to extract energy from marginal, unproductive, and productive oil and gas fields. Also, DOE is directed to establish a grant program for the recovery of energy from geopressured resources.
Potential GPGT-well pilot program cost-share, risk-reduction
20
GEM TEOR Summary
GEM TEOR design concept is ready for piloting in CA, TX-
Half the fuel per CWE bbl steam (v. gas-fired steam generators)
-
$3-$5 savings per CWE bbl steam (@ $8/Mcf gas)
-
Establish renewable energy system as optional co-product
-
Half the carbon footprint (~zero with renewable system offset)
Seeking pilot partners / sponsors / Govt. cost share-
Utilize GEM engineering support, studies, and vendor coordination
For more information contact:George S. Nitschke, D.Eng., P.E.Good Earth Mechanics, [email protected]
Backup Material
22
Good Earth Mechanics (GEM) TEOR: System Synopsis
Enhanced Oil Recovery System For Use With A Geopressured-Geothermal Conversion System
The Geopressured-Geothermal (GPGT) conversion system recovers raw GPGT brine througha wellbore, separates the natural gas, and concentrates the brine in a multi-effect evaporator. The separated gas and distillate H20 from the evaporator are used in a unique process toprovide cost-effective steamflood of collocated (shallower) heavy oil. The patent-pending Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (TEOR) process uses half the fuel per CWE bbl steam compared to conventional steam generators, reducing the carbon footprint while mitigating logistical problems of steam feed water treatment and TEOR produced water disposal. An optional co-product of the system is the establishment of large-scale solar ponding, from the concentrated brine discharge. The solar ponds can be equipped and used as a renewableenergy resource, e.g., producing solar-thermal electricity. A baseline system is projected to provide 4400 bpd steam (CWE) at 800 psi, x=0.80 quality, for a five-year GPGT flow-life. The co-product solar pond will produce 2 MWe annual average. The system is proposed for deployment in California and/or Texas, where the two largest U.S. GPGT basins exist. The California GPGT capacity is estimated at 1000+ baseline systems, and the Texas GPGT capacity is conservatively twice that of California.
23
The GPGT Resource
Geopressured-Geothermal energy (GPGT) is an immense energy resource that remains relatively untapped throughout the world
• High pressure, high temperature, gas cut, brine reservoirs– wellhead pressure: 1000−4000 psi– brine temperature: 250−400°F– GPGT brines contain 20−100 scf/bbl natural gas – normally found at depths greater than 10,000 feet– can be produced at high flow rates: 20,000−40,000 bbl/day– GPGT brines contain 15,000−200,000 ppm dissolved solids, typically 85% NaCl– outstanding flow longevity (Dept. of Energy flow tests, Gulf Coast region)
• The recoverable GPGT energies are– thermal (heat exchange with brine)– mechanical (flowing pressure at wellhead)– chemical (natural gas)
• U.S. GPGT regions are strategically collocated– California/Gulf Coast GPGT collocation with water crisis regions– GPGT collocation with medium-to-heavy U.S. oil reserves
Not to be confused with “hot-rock” geothermal energy
24
The GPGT Resource
U.S. GPGT Regions
25
The GPGT Resource
U.S. GPGT and Heavy Oil Collocational Aspects
Heavy Oil Region
4
26
GEM TEOR Evaluation No. 1R: Case 5
Spray-EvapCooling Pond
GPGT WellSurgeTank
Gas SeparatorPelton Wheel
1st
Effect2nd
EffectN
EffectFlashTank
Manifold
PeltonGenerator
N-EffectV-Comp
Oil
H2ODistillate
Vent
Flue
Solar Ponds or Disposal Well
Gas
Oil/WaterSeparator
Concentrate
Optional RO
SystemFreshWater
1 3
2
4
8
5
7
11
12
13
15 14
16
17
18
10
19
20
6
9
27
GEM TEOR Evaluation No. 1R: Case 5 (x=0.65, P=600 psi)
Pt Fluid / Other Mass Rate (lbm/s)
Pressure (psia)
Temperature (F) Remarks
1 20,000 bpd GPGT brine, 3.5% salt 79.65 3000 300 Case 5: 35k ppm, 300F, 60 scf/bbl GWR 2 Power produced by Pelton Turbine NA NA NA 600 kW (η: 87.2% Pelton, 95% generator) 3 Gas, from Surge Tank & Separator 0.86 200 300 0.12 lbm/s H2O; dry gas 81% mol CH4 0.46 lbm/s 4 de-gassed GPGT brine to flash tank 78.79 200 300 Tflash = 250F, Pflash = 28.9 psia 5 saturated brine output from MED 10.41 4.44 170 27.4% mass salt (83% NaCl, 13% CaCl, 2% KCl) 6 MED steam bypassed to condenser 2.90 3.69 170 20.3°F superheat (12.4°F boiling point rise effect N) 7 N-effect vapor for compression 4.96 3.69 170 8 H2O distillate withdrawn for sale 47.35 28.5 209 9 inner-stage evap-cool water 3.40 as req’d 209 inner-stage evap cool provided at pressure required 10 gas-turbine pwr for vap-compress NA NA NA 4150 kW (dry gas: 940 BTU/scf, 56.5 GWR net) 11 compressor TEOR steam 8.36 600 495 superheat ratio Dsh = 0.05 12 makeup H20 for target TEOR x 12.63 600 209 turbine exhaust heat recovered = 7524 BTU/s 13 x=0.65 quality TEOR steam 21.00 600 486 5184 CWE bpd TEOR steam 14 oil and TEOR return water NA NA 100 (est.) recovered oil plus TEOR water less hole losses 15 recovered oil 2300 bpd NA NA SOR = 2.25 bbl oil per CWE bbl steam 16 recirculated TEOR fluid 0 NA NA no-recirculation for this evaluation 17 recovered TEOR water for line out 11.68 surface 100 (est.) estimate 2300 bpd H2O (hole losses = bbl oil rec) 18 evap-cool water for zero-out SEP 2.90 30 100 0.1 acre zero-discharge spray-evap pond 19 RO potable water 1300 bpd NA NA assuming 60% recovery 20 RO concentrate 867 bpd NA NA density f{TEOR water TDS}, estimate as water
The above projections apply to No Recirculation. The following projections apply for Full Recirculation (only differences tabulated below, all other data equivalent between the two configurations)
8 H2O distillate withdrawn for sale 56.61 12 makeup H20 for target TEOR x 3.37 13 x=0.65 quality TEOR steam 19.80 4888 CWE bpd TEOR steam 14 oil and TEOR return water 15 recovered oil 2170 bpd SOR = 2.25 bbl oil per CWE bbl steam 16 recirculated TEOR fluid 8.11 600 100 (est.) full recirculation (less water for zero-out SEP) 17 recovered TEOR water for line out 2.90 estimate 715 bpd H2O (hole losses = bbl oil rec) 18 evap-cool water for zero-out SEP 19 RO potable water 0 20 RO concentrate 0
28
Mass / Energy Balance Check: MED
Pt Fluid / Other Mass Rate
(lbm/s)
Pressure (psia)
Temperature (F)
Enthalpy Btu/lbm
4 de-gassed GPGT brine to flash tank 78.79 200 300 265 [1] 5 saturated brine output from MED 10.41 4.44 170 110 [2] 6 MED steam bypassed to condenser 2.90 3.69 170 1135 [3] 7 N-effect vapor for compression 4.96 3.69 170 1135 8 H2O distillate withdrawn for sale 47.35 28.5 209 177 9 inner-stage evap-cool water 3.40 as req’d 209 177
12 makeup H20 for target TEOR x 12.63 600 209 177
Notes: [1] specific heat of 3.5%, 300F brine = 0.984 Btu/lbm*R [2] specific heat of 27.4%, 170F brine = 0.797 Btu/lbm*R [3] 20.3F superheat, condensed to sat. liquid in SEP
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )993,17928,17
17763.1240.335.47113596.411041.1026579.782951
295111354.11790.267.3,6
12129988775544
=++++=+−
−=−=−=
++++=+
sBtuhhmQ
hmhmhmhmhmhmQ
psiafSEP
SEP
&&
&&&&&&&
29
Mass / Energy Balance Check: TEOR FCS
Pt Fluid / Other Mass Rate (lbm/s)
Pressure (psia) Temperature (F) Enthalpy
Btu/lbm
3 Gas, from Surge Tank & Separator 0.86 [1] 200 300 NA
7 N-effect vapor for compression 4.96 3.69 170 1135
9 inner-stage evap-cool water 3.40 as req’d 209 177
10 gas-turbine pwr for vap-compress NA NA NA 4150 kW [2]
14 oil and TEOR return water NA NA 100 (est.) recovered oil plus TEOR water less hole losses
15 recovered oil 2300 bpd NA NA SOR = 2.25 bbl oil per CWE bbl steam
16 recirculated TEOR fluid 0 NA NA no-recirculation for this evaluation
17 recovered TEOR water for line out 11.68 surface 100 (est.) estimate 2300 bpd H2O (hole losses = bbl oil rec)
18 evap-cool water for zero-out SEP 2.90 30 100 0.1 acre zero-discharge spray-evap pond
m lbm/s sn 0.0% Ta 70T F ky 5184 RH 30%P psia N 44 W 5h BTU/lbm A pond 0.1 Qsol 300ky lbm/(hr*N*ΔH) N/1000 ft^2 10 Pa 0.105A acres Cw 1 Pp 0.174Q W/m̂ 2 gpm/N 8.0 Pr 1.277W mph P 14.7 Pb 0.937ρ lbm/ft^3 spray ht ft 15 ρa 0.075
Tr 109.5 Tsp 76.4
rate 348 ms 2.9Tb 100 Pn 9.0 Ts 149.7
kW 5 hfgs 1007mb 2.9 Tp 48.52 ρ r 61.8 Cpb 1.000Tb 100Pb 30 ΔTlm 66.1hb 68 Ac 636
Units Design Ambient Solutionmsurf uncorr
Q net rad 287Q conv -17
mer uncorrmeb uncorr
0.02
0.02
LHS - RHSme - mb
3.07
0.939
0
me corrected 2.920.02
dH/dx correction
32
Solar Pond Performance
Solar Radiation Comparison
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Month
Langleys/day
Corpus Christi China Lake Bakersfield
Corpus Christi 244 311 388 445 578 568 593 540 457 384 283 229
China Lake 266 380 490 608 670 710 726 660 550 426 360 319
The GEM TEOR CAPEX for a 20 yr system (assuming the OTSG life is likewise 20 yr) is estimated as follows (x=0.8, P=800 psi):
4 x 5yr GPGT wells at $3M per well = $6.7M (NPV to t=0 at i=10%) 1 Pelton-Generator set (production) = $0.5M MED system = $5M FCS gas turbine and vapor comp. = $7M Misc controls, SEP, trailer = $0.5M 4 x 2MW solar ponds = $0.0M (revenue neutral) Total $19.7M
Hence GEM TEOR CAPEX = $19.7M/4419 bspd = $4458 per CWE bspd. OTSG CAPEX $1316-$3086 per CWE bpd steam from industry sources.
For OTSG, assuming inlet water (70F), hinlet = 38.09 BTU/lbm for PEOR=800 psi at x=0.8, hEOR = 1061.38 BTU/lbm, allowing thermal efficiency = 80%, 940 BTU/scf GPGT gas, 350 lbm/CWE-bbl steam, then ( )
GEM TEOR (Case 5) at x=0.8 and PEOR=800 psi, TEOR CWE steam = 4419 CWE bpd. At 60 scf/bbl x 20,000 bpd GPGT = 1200 Mcf/day, or 1200/4419 = 0.272 Mcf gas/CWE bbl. Note: 0.272/0.476 = 0.57. With system optimization this ratio will approach 0.50 (half gas).
12
35
G.S. Nitschke Biography
DR. NITSCHKE BIO:
Dr. George S. Nitschke completed his doctorate in renewable energy at the Universityof Massachusetts in October 2006. Nitschke is currently a Lead Engineer for theMITRE Corporation, providing technical support to the Dept. of Defense on airborne systems. Prior to MITRE, Nitschke worked for the Boeing Company, engineeringairborne mechanical systems on both commercial and defense platforms. Nitschkereceived his M.S. Mech. Eng. in 1994 from the University of Washington and his B.S.Mech. Eng. in 1988 from the Wichita State University. Prior to becoming an engineer,Nitschke spent 12 years drilling exploratory oil, gas, and geothermal wells in SaudiArabia, Venezuela, Jamaica, Peru, Brazil, Chad, Ascension Island, the RockyMountains and the U.S. Midwest. A licensed Professional Engineer, Nitschke holdspatent(s) in Geopressured-Geothermal (GPGT) conversion systems and was aprincipal contributing consultant/author to the U.S. Department of Energy's GPGTconsortium (circa 1990-92). Nitschke formed Good Earth Mechanics, LLC (GEM) inthe fall of 2007. GEM is chartered to develop and promote the optimal conversion ofthe GPGT resource using technical expertise and intellectual property.